Lars Appel wrote:
>
> At 16:12 18.08.98 -0400, Kevin wrote:
> >I haven't done the 5.5 pp5 update/patch/install/etc, but I did go to 5.5
> >pp4 from 5.0 pp6, and I thought that the instructions were fantastic.
>  ...
> >Kevin "Yeah, I called HPRC and congratulated them on a job well done!"
>
> Which reminds me that I did have a German customer on the phone a while
> ago who basically said the same... he did spend time on the manual to
> thoroughly prepare the update and he did like the manual (to my surprise ;)
>
> Lars (maybe it's just a matter of getting used to the new thing)
>
> BTW, the HPRC did *not* write the manual. The thanks belong elsewhere!

Given the new customers HP expects for the HP3K and how many
Unix/Vax/etc. system admins may be trying to do HP3K work in the future,
a good update process is essential - and really it is almost there.

My impression of the new manual, which I've used a couple of times in
the earlier editions, was that it made an easy process seem complex. In
my view, the problem with the manual is that it trys to explain what it
is having you do at the same time your doing it. Most of the
combinations are easy steps, but it can be difficult to explain all of
what is going on.

Adding to the complexity is the fragile naming conventions that we're
all used to: the subsys tape may not say it's a subsys tape, a
Powerpatch may have it's own subsys or it may not, etc.

One step that I'd like to see improved is the preparation of the system.
It is all well and good that you can do much of the work with patch/ix
while the system is live, but this limits how much the session
environment can be standardized. file equations, HPPATH, UDCs, custom
command files, 3rd party product, and other things can all interfere
with some of the normal update command working correctly. There are
often easy fixes, but only experienced system administrators may
recognized them.

For newcomers, we need a fool proof approach, and I'd nominate autoinst
and the traditional manual as really close to this level.

A good program that prepares custom instructions might be a good
substitute and allow the use of shortcuts like using patch/ix when it is
appropriate.  It could also fix problems like the varying names of the
tapes by customizing the program with the actual names the tapes are
shipped with. It would also be easier to fix mistakes in the program by
downloading a new program file than it is to print and ship corrected
manuals. But why print instructions at all?

In my experience, once the environment is set up correctly, the autoinst
or patch/ix programs do a good job of leading you through most of the
steps without a manual. If these were enhanced to help verify and tell
the use what to correct in the preparation step and then at the end tell
the user how to handle the "manually" installed products and the network
products and such, it would be complete.  With this approach, the only
printed manual would be to  orient you to which choices to make
initially (PP w/ or w/o subsys, etc.) and as a troubleshooting guide for
use if things go wrong.

It has always been my impression that the big update manuals leave (esp.
new) customers with the impression that MPE updates are complex and
messy, when in fact MPE has one the best, if not the best, update
process among all computer systems.

--
Richard Gambrell
Database Administrator and Consultant to Computing Services
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Work e-mail: [log in to unmask]
      phone: 423-755-4551
Home e-mail: [log in to unmask]